Comment by Sculptingman on Diseased disciplines: the strange case of the inverted chart · 2012-02-05T18:11:53.701Z · LW · GW

...Talk about a pointless distinction... The two supposed inconsistent statements are, functionally, semantically consistent.. Original claim translates as: When you discover defects the cost of fixing the defect is higher, the later you detect it...i.e. proportional to the additional work done since the defect was inserted.

Second claim is not identical, but is a natural derivation of the first based upon what it means... i.e. IF the foregoing analysis is true, then, in post release you can predict the cost of defect repair by determining how early in development the defect occurred. The properly and pertinently derived meaning not explicit in the first statement is that Not all bugs discovered in beta testing will cost the same to fix, and you can expect cost to be higher the earlier it occurred. Because post- release is effectively the "Later"-est you Can detect... It is entirely sound as a conclusion. Thus there is no inconsistency, the citations are, in fact, solid and correct. And the analogy the author presents is not even remotely reflective of the problem he imagines to exist.

the prior study may well be methodologically flawed, but on the assumption it's conclusions we're valid, the subsequent citations were correct interpretations of its effect on the cost of fixing bugs discovered After release.